Expert Analysis

• Perspectives

  DC Circ. Gag Order Rulings Reveal A Digital Privacy Paradox

  

  A pair of rulings from the D.C. Circuit reveal a growing dilemma in digital privacy jurisprudence for investigative targets, technology companies and transparency advocates — even when courts set the bar higher for broad nondisclosure requests, the public may never be allowed to learn why orders get approved, say attorneys at RJO.

• Fed. Circ. In Jan.: On The Validity Of Expert Testimony

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Barry v. DePuy, addressing whether expert testimony is admissible even if it does not strictly adhere to the court's claim construction, suggests that exclusion via a Daubert motion is appropriate only when the line to improper testimony is clearly crossed, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.

• Methods For Challenging State Civil Investigative Demands

  

  Ongoing challenges to enforcement actions underscore the uphill battle businesses face in arguing that a state investigation is prohibited by federal law, but when properly deployed, these arguments present a viable strategy to resist civil investigative demands issued by state attorneys general, say attorneys at Troutman Pepper.

• Emerging Themes In Post-Groff Accommodation Decisions

  

  Nearly three years after the U.S. Supreme Court's seminal decision in Groff v. DeJoy reshaped the legal framework for religious accommodations, lower court decisions and agency guidance have begun to reveal how this heightened standard operates in practice, and the pitfalls for unwary employers, says Helen Jay at Phelps Dunbar.

• Calif.'s Civility Push Shows Why Professionalism Is Vital

  

  The California Bar’s campaign against discourteous behavior by attorneys, including a newly required annual civility oath, reflects a growing concern among states that professionalism in law needs shoring up — and recognizes that maintaining composure even when stressed is key to both succeeding professionally and maintaining faith in the legal system, says Lucy Wang at Hinshaw.

• 4th Circ. D&O Ruling Shows Why Textual Policy Args Are Best

  

  The Fourth Circuit's recent decision in favor of the insurer in Navigators Insurance v. Under Armour highlights how plain-text policy interpretation protects party autonomy and improves predictability to the benefit of both insurers and insureds, say attorneys at Zelle.

• Series

  Trivia Competition Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Playing trivia taught me to quickly absorb information and recognize when I've learned what I'm expected to know, training me in the crucial skills needed to be a good attorney, and reminding me to be gracious in defeat, says Jonah Knobler at Patterson Belknap.

• An Instructive Reminder On Appealing ITC Determinations

  

  A recent Federal Circuit decision, partially dismissing Crocs' appeal of a U.S. International Trade Commission verdict as untimely, offers a powerful reminder that the ITC is a creature of statute and that practitioners would do well to interpret those statutes conservatively, says Derrick Carman at Robins Kaplan.

• Decoding Arbitral Disputes: US Cert Denial And EU Strategy

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in Russia v. Hulley Enterprises, leaving in place the D.C. Circuit's opinion supporting jurisdiction in the $50 billion arbitration award challenge, and intensifying litigation exposure for the European Union's strategy of contesting the enforceability of intra-EU awards abroad, says Josep Galvez at 4-5 Gray's Inn.

• Series

  Law School's Missed Lessons: What Cross-Selling Truly Takes

  

  Early-career attorneys may struggle to introduce clients to practitioners in other specialties, but cross-selling becomes easier once they know why it’s vital to their first years of practice, which mistakes to avoid and how to anticipate clients' needs, say attorneys at Moses & Singer.

• OCC Mortgage Escrow Rules Add Fuel To Preemption Debate

  

  Two rules proposed in December by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which would preempt state laws requiring national banks to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts, are a bold new federal gambit in the debate over how much authority Congress intended to hand state regulators under the Dodd-Frank Act, says Christian Hancock at Bradley Arant.

• When Tokenized Real-World Assets Collide With Real World

  

  The city of Detroit's ongoing case against Real Token, alleging building code and safety violations across over 400 Detroit residential properties, highlights the brave new world we face when real estate assets are tokenized via blockchain technology — and what happens to the human tenants caught in the middle, say Biying Cheng and Cornell law professor David Reiss.

• Mass. Ruling Raises Questions About Whistleblower Status

  

  In Galvin v. Roxbury Community College, Massachusetts' top appellate court held that an individual was protected from retaliation as a whistleblower, even though he engaged in illegal activity, raising questions about whether whistleblowers who commit illegal acts are protected and whether trusted employees are doing their job or whistleblowing, say attorneys at Littler.

• Series

  Judges On AI: Practical Use Cases In Chambers

  

  U.S. Magistrate Judge Allison Goddard in the Southern District of California discusses how she uses generative artificial intelligence tools in chambers to make work more efficient and effective — from editing jury instructions for clarity to summarizing key documents.

• Notable Q4 Updates In Insurance Class Actions

  

  Last quarter featured a novel class action theory about car rental reimbursement coverage, another win for insurers in total loss valuations, a potentially broad-reaching Idaho Supreme Court ruling about illusory underinsured motorist coverage, and homeowners blaming rising premiums on the fossil fuel industry, says Kevin Zimmerman at BakerHostetler.